Sexual Justice: Alexandra Brodsky
Notes from books SA/F
Sexual Justice
— “Some spoke of “due process” when their real goal was impunity” (7)
— want people to be held accountable, want the process to be fair
— fair processes are crucial, but “fairness” is often “co-opted and weaponized to thwart progress” (9) how do we promote fairness to all while still
—is a crime and a civil right’s violation, eg, this is why victims can bring a civil suit
“Because of the danger and inaccessibility of legal proceedings, the vast majority of victims do not turn to the law in the wake of harassment….
Instead, they may turn to institutions to respond, filing complaints with their company’s Human Resources department, for example, or their school’s Title IX coordinator. These options exist in the shadow of the law, informed by it and sometimes required by it. But they are not legal proceedings themselves”
P 12, on why she didn’t write about restorative justice “That process depends on the wrongdoer’s willingness to acknowledge and rectify the harm he has caused. Through a series of facilitated conversations, the victim and other community members help the wrongdoer understand the impact of his conduct and how he can address the victim’s needs while ensuring that the injury isn’t repeated” (p 12)
Instead “But my project here is a different one: How can today’s institutions fairly handle allegations that the accused denies--when he says no harm occurred, so nothing needs to be restored?”
— p 21 over 1/3 of college sexual assault survivors quit school
— (1) power and social context matter for male harassment/assault of women/enby/trans folks. (2) Victims are targeted on the “basis of sex” (Catherine MacKinnon, Sexual Harassment of Working Women). Harassment/assault (and silencing, etc) serve to enforce a gendered hierarchy - “sexual harassment is a technology of sexism” (Katherine Franke, p 31)
— institutions have always had to address physical/sexual assault, eg, you can’t have people punching people or stealing other employee’s $ — you wouldn’t have employees working at a place in which the harmed employee was simply told to go to the police rather than having issue addressed within institutions. Need to be able to respond quickly before person harmed & other bystanders leave
— “…institutions can provide community-specific protections and remedies a court cannot” (41) “swift, flexible, and light-touch solutions” (42)
More options that do not involve prison nor monetary payouts
“Retain ownership” over process (43)
P 44 - two stories of men accused of harassment, one was fired, another found the process ‘deeply painful’ but both grew from their experiences
“…the community-based, transformative, explicitly anti-carceral efforts by radical communities of color are in no way interchangeable with the kinds practices I mainly focus on in this book, such as workplace HR proceedings” ( 47)
Audrie Pott, Lizzy Seeberg, Rehtaeh Parsons - https://www.mic.com/articles/37765/audrie-pott-case-sexual-assault-isn-t-taken-seriously-enough-by-schools
— not everything with profound consequences, eg a cheating partner or unfriending a close friend, needs to be adjudicated
The higher the stakes for the accused and the more serious the outcomes (eg, due process for a criminal trial), the more serious the process. The decision to not buy tickets to see someone accused of rape, nor listen to their music, is low - the accused artist is not entitled to their audience.
A blueprint —
Clear, understandable rules governing the conduct (code of conduct), includes prohibited behaviors, defines consent, and define micro aggressions.
Harmed person has the opportunity to lodge complaint, the other party is then informed of the allegation
Both harmed and harm-doer are informed of the process, and if possible, assigned help to navigate
Each should be able to present their side of story, witnesses, and supporting evidence
Each should be able to review evidence other side presented//ask questions of other side — with appropriate protections
The complainant bears burden of proving allegation
Unbiased decision-makers should consider the evidence and explain decision to parties
Is there an appeal process?
The protections should be such that extra burden is placed on decision-makers/institution, not accused or complainant
Fair processes that “engender community trust-that victims see as legitimate authorities to resolve conflicts-also reduce the likelihood of the wronged turning to vigilante options that put everyone at risk”